"Pedophilia as an orientation? No, that can't be punished. As an act of child molestation? Absolutely. Having sex wit a minor is a crime regardless of sexual orientation. Heterosexual, Homosexual, or Necrophilic, having sex with a minor is illegal."
Let us start right here since I do not like overly quoting.
1) The curriculum must give students accurate information on STIs, teen pregnancy, reproductive rights, pubescence, sexuality, gender identity, human anatomy, and methods of birth control. For those between the ages of 10 and 13 years old, only information on pubescence, sexuality, gender identity, and human anatomy are required. For students aged 13 and up, the curriculum must include lessons on STIs, teenage pregnancy, reproductive rights, and birth control as well. Age-appropriateness should be taken into consideration when planning how to approach each topic.
Another reason for me to then attempt to rise against this resolution in every possible way. Otherwise I might be forced to teach persons as young as ten yearolds extensivly about sexual orientations like pedophilia, necrophilia, and zoophilia. Does Cor- Sorry, Miss Schulz find this morally agreeable?
I also are a bit distressed by your quotations out of contexts, however my next issue to adress is an apology directed personally at the Separatist ambassador, and alas, I did if you read somewhat haphazardly apologize for my harsh language and inconsiderate wording. However I do want to argue once again that I should be allowed to adress them as whatever I like (in fact, I am pretty sure I am allowed to call a christian delusional for believing in something that cannot be biologically or physically proven, the real crime would be if we as a nation started acting and declaring them all mentally ill by law.), since the fact is that i need to treat, not just think nor have the opinion of transgendered to be delusional to actually breaking the law. This is another loophole, and practically dancing on a line, so yes, I should have been a bit more considerate which I also have made clear and if this ambassador indeed is hurt by my statement I will apologize for not being more considerate, will I apologize for my opinions and beliefs? Never, that would be censorship. I would also like to point out that me claiming them to be hallucinating is just one part of a sentance, and should be read in context.
I cannot simple see the problematics surrounding (CENSOREDFORYOURFEELINGS) considering genders, and frankly if you believe that you are something that you are not, it is indeed not my problem nor my responsibility, and neither the governments.
The main point are therefore that the statement is that whatever you believe in, or percieve yourself as should never be the governments concern since to them you should all be equal.
Now onto how not knowing the law which if you actually read what I wrote I admit is my own fault in part, even though I politely ask others to take that as a mitigating factor not an absolution from guilt.
I am not going to argue my staying or leaving the WA further here since it has barely nothing to do with the regulation other than what I have previously stated Miss Schulz.
And now to as shortly as possible and preferably somewhat consideratly recounting a few reasons why this is a resolution I do not support at all.
First and perhaps the one I've argued mostly for: We do not ever wish to be forced to give special treatment to any of our citizen due to their race, sexuality or gender whatever they might be as we feel that this would discriminate the normative persons by giving extra rights to those non-normative.
Secondly this law diminishes my nations sovereignity which seems to be common amongst wa regulations, something I dislike but in many cases can allow, except in areas surrounding ideology, social development, education and religion, and what we percieve as violating civil rights.
Third. This law forces my educational system to completely adjust itself to overly teaching something we as a nation do not believe to be treated as a recouring course for public schools, we would deem it sufficient to have sexual education for a week per class every third or fourth years starting from age 12 surrounding the subjects of how children are made, menstruation, puberty and lighter subjects. We see no reason to teach them increasingly about sexual activities at this age. We could agree to that surrounding the age of 15-16, in terms of safe sex, general information about stds and how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Where we would have no problem whatsoever informing the classes that they may seek a psychiatrist or curator or counselor or an equivalent employed by the school either by email or an anonymous pre-booked visit. We just do not see why we should be forced to educate them especially and extensivly on non-normative sexual intercourse, orientations and percieved genders in large classes.
Fourth. This law has so many loopholes that there is no point that I should be forced to follow it against my will.
Fifth. This law would have me teach extensively about every sexual orientation in existance. I will state some I do especially not want to teach to ten year olds,
I warn everyone to not google these if you are easily distressed by graphic images and/or written text.
OOC and lastly the OOC. Yes, i do find that more insulting than my statement that
since this is an explaination of my viewpoint, not a direct assault of characther. Even though I in retrospect can agree I could have made basically the same point without using the word hallucinations, it isn't directed as an insult to a person nor even the group of hbtq:ers or whatever they are called. It's merely a statement that I who do not agree that this is something I need to adhere especially to be forced to cede extra rights for.
You however included several insults, deliberate attempts at belittling my views and used words even an outstanding person as yourself had to censor. In fact, if you read your post again, you will hopefully notice that most of it is designated to argue myself and not the contents of my view. You just argue my knowledge and how well I have adhered to the law, not the points I am trying to make.
There is the difference, and for me that is not hypocritic. I can also not see where I have failed to respect others and keep a civil tone even when they have argued against me, something which your characther, which I see as you, have not. In fact I only see two attempts at openly disagreeing with my views and not myself.